Comments on: [H]ard Journalism http://www.aelon.net/2006/07/hard-journalism/ Random babblings from a few digitally inclined people Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:03:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: Kelmon http://www.aelon.net/2006/07/hard-journalism/#comment-2091 Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:04:15 +0000 http://www.aelon.net/2006/07/hard-journalism/#comment-2091 In Reply to <a href="#comment-2089" rel="nofollow">#4</a>: I'm hoping that the revised MacBook Pro's will increase the memory limit. 2GB will be much better than my current 1GB maximum but I suspect that 2GB will prove to be limiting soon and therefore it would be nice to have the option of 4GB. Fingers crossed... In Reply to #4:

I’m hoping that the revised MacBook Pro’s will increase the memory limit. 2GB will be much better than my current 1GB maximum but I suspect that 2GB will prove to be limiting soon and therefore it would be nice to have the option of 4GB. Fingers crossed…

]]> by: Kai Brach http://www.aelon.net/2006/07/hard-journalism/#comment-2089 Tue, 22 Aug 2006 00:38:48 +0000 http://www.aelon.net/2006/07/hard-journalism/#comment-2089 I can only agree with what Holliday said. Since I'm working at a computer store I try to keep my CPU/Motherboard always up-to-date. However the RAM is the part that makes to biggest difference. I'm also doing a lot of photo and video editing and nothing seems to lift my PC's performance as well as 2 fat 1GB memory sticks :-) I can only agree with what Holliday said. Since I’m working at a computer store I try to keep my CPU/Motherboard always up-to-date. However the RAM is the part that makes to biggest difference.
I’m also doing a lot of photo and video editing and nothing seems to lift my PC’s performance as well as 2 fat 1GB memory sticks :-)

]]> by: Holliday http://www.aelon.net/2006/07/hard-journalism/#comment-2058 Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:37:28 +0000 http://www.aelon.net/2006/07/hard-journalism/#comment-2058 I think a bit of both camps would be the best way to review hardware in this scenario. I know whenever I upgrade my CPU I am rather dissappointed at the gaming performance increase (if any). I've upgraded my CPU as an isolated component twice now. One from a 1.2ghz AMD to a 2400+, then from that 2400+ to a 3700+. Each time the gaming increase was maybe 1-2 FPS. When it comes to games it seems like the CPUs are always lightyears ahead of the video cards and don't even remotely get tapped. Although since I have personal experience with this I am already aware that CPU is on the lower tiers of upgrading for game performance (GPU and RAM are king). It would be nice if Firing Squad had a disclaimer or column that noted real world performance at the moment is just not there because of the video card cap. Show us all what we can expect once video cards beef up but be sure to tell us that before we dump hundreds on this new CPU that we won't see anything yet. I think a bit of both camps would be the best way to review hardware in this scenario. I know whenever I upgrade my CPU I am rather dissappointed at the gaming performance increase (if any).

I’ve upgraded my CPU as an isolated component twice now. One from a 1.2ghz AMD to a 2400+, then from that 2400+ to a 3700+. Each time the gaming increase was maybe 1-2 FPS. When it comes to games it seems like the CPUs are always lightyears ahead of the video cards and don’t even remotely get tapped.

Although since I have personal experience with this I am already aware that CPU is on the lower tiers of upgrading for game performance (GPU and RAM are king). It would be nice if Firing Squad had a disclaimer or column that noted real world performance at the moment is just not there because of the video card cap. Show us all what we can expect once video cards beef up but be sure to tell us that before we dump hundreds on this new CPU that we won’t see anything yet.

]]> by: Cyrris http://www.aelon.net/2006/07/hard-journalism/#comment-2056 Sun, 23 Jul 2006 07:31:38 +0000 http://www.aelon.net/2006/07/hard-journalism/#comment-2056 No, not at all. The FirinqSquad review details DivX encoding, MP3 encoding, and WMP encoding times, as well as rendering times for Cinebench and 3D Studio Max. Meanwhile HardOCP has an entirely separate article where they do similar tests - it's just that it really didn't use enough CPUs for it to be too helpful. As for gaming, I think a CPU review simply needs to be refocused to also demonstrate gaming situations which aren't GPU-limited. Turn-waiting in Civilization 3 and 4 is one such thing, as well as strategy games with many units that are off-screen. And I know when I play singleplayer Battlefield 2 or even Counter-Strike:Source, my CPU starts becoming the frame limiter because of all the bots. None of the reviews really took this kind of thing in to account as best I could see. Definitely not on the scale needed to see CPU usage as the main performance factor. Games definitely are an important part of testing the CPU, but they're not all the benchmarking that review sites do. They're just probably the most complicated, as there are more variables (such as the graphics card). No, not at all. The FirinqSquad review details DivX encoding, MP3 encoding, and WMP encoding times, as well as rendering times for Cinebench and 3D Studio Max. Meanwhile HardOCP has an entirely separate article where they do similar tests - it’s just that it really didn’t use enough CPUs for it to be too helpful.

As for gaming, I think a CPU review simply needs to be refocused to also demonstrate gaming situations which aren’t GPU-limited. Turn-waiting in Civilization 3 and 4 is one such thing, as well as strategy games with many units that are off-screen. And I know when I play singleplayer Battlefield 2 or even Counter-Strike:Source, my CPU starts becoming the frame limiter because of all the bots. None of the reviews really took this kind of thing in to account as best I could see. Definitely not on the scale needed to see CPU usage as the main performance factor.

Games definitely are an important part of testing the CPU, but they’re not all the benchmarking that review sites do. They’re just probably the most complicated, as there are more variables (such as the graphics card).

]]> by: Kelmon http://www.aelon.net/2006/07/hard-journalism/#comment-2055 Sun, 23 Jul 2006 07:15:20 +0000 http://www.aelon.net/2006/07/hard-journalism/#comment-2055 You know, reading through all this only one thing appears to be clear: games aren't a very good way of testing new CPUs. As the potential owner of a new CPU you surely want to know how much difference this will make to your overall computing experience rather than just games. As the reviews note, games are mostly graphics card limited so maybe they should also post benchmarks on stuff that you do on your computer today and which are not limited by the graphics card. For the sake of argument, and I know this is really mundane when compared to Battlefield 2 or something else wiz-bang, how long it takes to Zip a really big file. I'm pretty sure that everyone doesn't spend 100% of their time playing games even if they have created a gaming PC so surely some non-gaming benchmarks for common tasks would be useful. For my part I was crying out for a faster processor yesterday when editing a home movie and creating a DVD from a friend's wedding. There wasn't much rocket launcher action going on there but I did spend a lot of time watching progress bars move slowly across a screen as various elements were rendered. While Apple does let users with Core Graphics compliant graphics cards (i.e. not one like mine) use them when previewing effects, everything else is CPU limited. Given this I would see much more impact from a new CPU doing these things than a I would playing a game, so maybe the likes of HardOCP and FiringSquad should be showing benchmarks for stuff like this (applying Photoshop filters could be another test). Still, I can see the reaction to this now: only games are important... You know, reading through all this only one thing appears to be clear: games aren’t a very good way of testing new CPUs. As the potential owner of a new CPU you surely want to know how much difference this will make to your overall computing experience rather than just games. As the reviews note, games are mostly graphics card limited so maybe they should also post benchmarks on stuff that you do on your computer today and which are not limited by the graphics card. For the sake of argument, and I know this is really mundane when compared to Battlefield 2 or something else wiz-bang, how long it takes to Zip a really big file. I’m pretty sure that everyone doesn’t spend 100% of their time playing games even if they have created a gaming PC so surely some non-gaming benchmarks for common tasks would be useful.

For my part I was crying out for a faster processor yesterday when editing a home movie and creating a DVD from a friend’s wedding. There wasn’t much rocket launcher action going on there but I did spend a lot of time watching progress bars move slowly across a screen as various elements were rendered. While Apple does let users with Core Graphics compliant graphics cards (i.e. not one like mine) use them when previewing effects, everything else is CPU limited. Given this I would see much more impact from a new CPU doing these things than a I would playing a game, so maybe the likes of HardOCP and FiringSquad should be showing benchmarks for stuff like this (applying Photoshop filters could be another test).

Still, I can see the reaction to this now: only games are important…

]]>